| nettime's-prison-moleskine on Thu, 4 Feb 2016 02:42:03 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| <nettime> Intercept > Barrett Brown Review of Arts and Letters and Prison > The Rule of Law Enforcement |
< https://theintercept.com/2016/02/02/barrett-brown-the-rule-of-law-enforcement/ >
The Barrett Brown Review of Arts and Letters and Prison
The Rule of Law Enforcement
Barrett Brown
2016-02-02T15:02:11+00:00
AFTER HAVING SPENT the prior six months in a fruitless cycle of
retaliation and counter-retaliation and counter-counter-retaliation
with the administration of the Federal Correctional Institution at Fort
Worth, where I managed to do about half of my time in the hole before
finally getting kicked out altogether, I was delighted to arrive here
at FCI Three Rivers, a medium security prison subject to occasional
outbreaks of gang warfare that also happens to be quite a lot of fun.
And though one's first few days at a new prison are always given over
largely to errands and social obligations, I did manage to get in some
much-needed reading time when someone lent me a copy of Five Families,
a history of the American mafia by the veteran New York Times crime
reporter Selwyn Raab. I've never had much interest in organized
crime of the non-governmental sort, but ever since 2009 when I read
through the bulk of Thomas Friedman's past columns in the course of
researching a book on the subject of incompetence, I've been fascinated
by the extent to which a fellow can be a bit of a dummy, with
questionable writing abilities and a penchant for making demonstrably
erroneous attacks on others, and still find regular employment with the
nation's most prestigious newspaper (though in fairness to the Times,
they did eventually get rid of William Kristol).
I'm afraid I gave up on reading Five Families straight through after
about the halfway mark, by which point it had become clear that Raab,
contrary to all decency, was going to continue using the phrase
"law-enforcement" thusly, with the unwarranted hyphen, something
that would have been more tolerable did the term not necessarily appear
every few pages due to the nature of the subject matter, often in the
company of such other improprieties as "civil-rights,"
"public-relations," "stolen-car rings," or "loan-shark," and to such an
extent that one could be forgiven for suspecting that Raab himself, for
all his tough talk on crime, is in fact some sort of illicit hyphen
smuggler.
Luckily, this is the sort of book from which one can extract the most
telling instances of Gray Lady-caliber foolishness just by skimming
around. At some point Raab seems to decide that the writers of The
Sopranos must be punished for humanizing the mafia in the course of
writing a drama about human beings who are in the mafia. And so, more
in sadness than in anger, but more in confusion than either, he set out
to debunk the show's fictional plotline by way of his own fictional
journalistic expertise: "Genuine capos and wiseguys would never emulate
Tony's behavior. ... No top-tier mobster would last long if he behaved
like Tony Soprano, who defies basic Mafioso caution by exposing himself
as a ripe target, to be easily mowed down by rivals. He drives without
a bodyguard; sips espresso in daylight at a sidewalk café." This comes
just a few chapters after we're told the following about a real-life
top-tier mobster: "Shunning bodyguards and bullet-proof limousines, the
sixty-six-year-old godfather met with his Mafia associates in
restaurants and travelled about Manhattan in taxis like any ordinary
businessman."
To his credit, Raab did manage to refrain from rendering this last bit
as "ordinary-businessman," which is just extraordinary, so we'll give
him another try: "Sex and psychiatry are prominent in The Sopranos'
story line. Confiding in a psychiatrist, however, would be a
radioactive mistake for a boss or capo, who can never display symptoms
of weakness or mental instability." Naturally Raab has already
forgotten having written the following about mafia boss Frank Costello:
"Striving for inner peace while hovering between criminal affiliates
and respected society, Costello tried psychoanalysis."
Even had the author not been so sporting as to provide us with
comically perfect counterexamples by which to disprove his various
inane objections, one could have also pointed out that Tony Soprano's
decision to see a psychiatrist does in fact prove to be a "mistake"
insomuch as that it directly leads to a rupture in his organization
culminating in a botched assassination attempt in the very first
season, so this objection wouldn't have made any sense even had it
gotten past that crucial directly-contradicted-by-your-own-fucking-book
hurdle that seems to be giving Raab so much trouble. Now take a moment
to reflect on the fact that this is the guy the New York Times assigned
to report on one of the nation's most complex and insidious criminal
conspiracies -- this plodding hyphen addict who cannot seem to follow a
television show or even his own manuscript. One supposes that there is
some alternate universe in which this might be considered a problem and
where Ross Douthat manages a furniture store and everyone knows his
place.
barrettbrown-11
BUT THERE'S MORE to prison life than just sitting around despising the
New York Times. A week after arrival at Three Rivers, we new inmates
were summoned to an "Admissions and Orientation" seminar in which the
various department heads each speak for a few minutes about
institutional policy. I'd attended one of these back at Fort Worth;
usually the highlight is a short video clip of Bureau of Prisons
Director Charles Samuels, who gives a little talk. No one knows what
the talk is about, as whoever's nephew was put in charge of producing
the video has talked Samuels into pausing every couple of sentences to
shift position and look into the other camera, just like the
newscasters, something that the fellow can manage only with the most
hilarious awkwardness, and so it proves impossible to follow what he's
actually saying -- which is a shame, as it's almost certainly something
very non-formulaic and true.
Today, however, the chief attraction was to be our warden, Norbal
Vazquez, a longtime BOP functionary from Puerto Rico who is proverbial
for his deranged monologues as well as for being regarded with great
contempt by staff and inmates alike. Here are some actual quotes from
his exquisitely demented half-hour orientation talk, during which he
waddled back and forth, wagging his finger in admonishment when
appropriate and sometimes when not:
On his own qualifications for the job: "I am here because I earned
it!"
On the assistant wardens upon whom lesser wardens depend: "I do not
need them!"
On his inspiring biography: "I was a case manager before, and I was
an OUTSTANDING one!" [wags finger]
On the status of we benighted inmates, sitting in darkness: "You are
all my children!"
On who controls the prison: "Probably in some of your minds, is
inmates! But you are wrong!"
On, er, violators: "I have no mercy for violators!"
On medical care: "You have a bullet in your leg and you want the
bureau to heal you! Ha! Ha ha!"
On the insufficiency of our meals: "Don't come complain to me about
your meals. Because there are children with nothing!"
On gang warfare: "If you show force, I am going to show force!"
On homemade alcohol: "If you are drinking all that nasty thing,
shame on you! When your liver fails, I don't care!"
On inmates who are placed in the SHU and transferred to violent
maximum security prisons because they've been caught with harmless
contraband like synthetic marijuana: "They cry like babies! I have
no mercy!"
The only disappointing thing about the presentation was that he didn't
end by exhibiting his medals and declaring himself President for Life;
indeed, I almost cried when someone told me he was retiring a few weeks
hence. And "all that nasty thing" is my new favorite hooch-related
meme, edging out "PRISON MADE INTHOXICANT" from a few columns back.
All in all, it was an informative speech in spite of itself, even aside
from the fellow's suspicious insistence on his own competence and
self-reliance and entirely meritocratic ascension to the top spot.
There was quite a bit of talk, for instance, about how the gangs aren't
in control of the prison, something that obviously wouldn't need so
much triumphant emphasis were such a state of affairs not at least a
possibility.
barrettbrown-21
IN FACT, THE GANGS really don't have control over the prison. But then
neither does the administration, if by "control" we mean the ability to
make uncontested decisions over what happens within a given space, in
which case control is always a matter of degree. The federal and state
governments of the United States, for instance, exercise some degree of
overlapping control over their territory, but not to such an extent
that the various law-enforcement agencies -- er, law enforcement
agencies -- arrest any but a small minority of residents who violate
the law. This is just as well, since the law requires that the tens of
millions of Americans who use drugs or gamble or involve themselves in
prostitution be imprisoned -- and that's not even counting federal law,
which, as convincingly estimated by civil liberties attorney Harvey
Silvergate in his book Three Felonies a Day, the average American
unwittingly violates every day. And thus it is that the U.S. can
continue to exist above the level of an unprecedented gulag state only
to the extent that its laws are not actually enforced -- an
extraordinary and fundamental fact of American life that one might hope
in vain to see rise to the level of an election issue, but which is at
least worth keeping in mind when it comes to the debate over whether or
not we should keep granting the state ever more powerful methods of
surveillance until it becomes the All-Seeing God Against Whose Laws We
All Have Sinned. (Personally I'd vote "no," but then I'm a felon and
can't vote anyway.)
As is the case with the country at large, the rules within each federal
prison are such that a large portion of everyday activity actually
violates those rules -- and in both cases, 99 percent of the violations
go unpunished, while anyone who proves inconvenient to the powers that
be can be singled out for retaliation. Technically it's against the
rules to give anything to another inmate, for instance, or to sell or
trade or lend for that matter, but of course this is done all day
without a second thought, often in plain view of the guards, not a
single one of whom would consider objecting. There are other rules that
are almost universally disregarded but can be invoked at whim; there is
also a catch-all violation, "Anything Unauthorized," on hand as a last
resort. But rabble-rousers can usually be dispensed with via more
specific regulations such as those barring the signing of petitions or
holding of demonstrations. (I myself was thrown in the hole for months
due to my supposed leadership role in one such demonstration
against an abusive guard who'd just threatened an elderly man.)
Part of the justification behind those two regulations in particular is
that there exists a means by which inmates can have their grievances
addressed: the administrative remedy process. Naturally the BOP
routinely conspires to prevent inmates from completing that process;
the surreal lengths to which it's gone to keep me from pursuing my own
retaliation complaint, a process I've documented in this column over
the course of the last nine months, are actually quite commonly
deployed against inmates deemed to have a good chance of winning in
court. Presumably this is why the Freedom of Information Act request
that The Intercept filed with the BOP some months ago to obtain records
of the administrative remedy process at FCI Fort Worth was denied with
no explanation, even though the documents in question are specifically
designated as being FOIA accessible. Any comprehensive examination of
those records would reveal a systematic and highly effective effort by
BOP officials to prevent inmates from bringing instances of major
policy violations and even outright criminal activity by the bureau to
the attention of the courts. The American people do not control their
own prisons.
The reality is that control is shared by way of a sort of makeshift
federalism that varies in particulars from prison to prison but in
which real power is always divided among the various gangs, the staff,
and local and regional administrators in an arrangement that's best
described as a cross between the old Swiss canton system and China
during the Warring States period, which I'll be the first to
acknowledge is not especially helpful. Suffice to say that it will take
me the remainder of my sentence to provide a real sense of this
remarkable state-within-a-state and its inimitable politics -- the
politics of the literally disenfranchised, who live their lives in the
very guts of government without being able to rely on its protections,
and so are forced to provide their own. Really, it's a
state-within-a-state-within-a-state.
Complicating matters further is the great extent to which prisons can
differ, with the most pronounced of these divisions being that between
the state and federal systems. Broadly, we federals tend to look down
upon our regional cousins as "not quite our sort, old boy," although
I'm probably the only one who puts it in exactly those terms. The state
prisons tend to house the small-time dealers, whereas the feds are more
often home to the guys who supplied them. The state is halfway filled
with such actual criminals as thieves, rapists, and murderers, whereas
the feds are made up largely of illegal immigrants and drug
entrepreneurs -- people who have neither hurt anyone nor deprived them
of their property, but instead made the mistake of taking all of this
"free market" talk seriously. The character of the federal prisons,
then, will usually differ from those of the states. But then they'll
also differ among themselves, sometimes quite a bit, and not just along
other readily obvious divisions such as those between minimum, low,
medium, and maximum security designations, either. A few years ago the
medium at Beaumont, Texas, to which I just narrowly avoided being sent
myself, was considerably more violent than many of the maximums (also
known as pens or, more technically, USPs). Back at the FCI Fort Worth,
there was a marked degree of difference in how certain things were done
even between the several 300-man units into which inmates were divided.
And since the local administrators can disregard national policy more
or less at will, as has been documented in this column repeatedly for
two years, de facto policy will naturally vary from institution to
institution as well. The result of all of this is that each prison is
its own unique snowflake, fluttering about on gusts of cultural drift
and BOP lawlessness.
THE VITAL STATISTICS of my stomping grounds here at Three Rivers, then,
are as follows. The prison is home to a bit more than 1,000 inmates, of
whom about 60 percent are Mexican nationals, another 20 percent are
U.S. Hispanics, 10 percent are black, 5 percent are Latin American, and
5 percent are white (the ofay percentage of 15 percent I cited last
time appears to have been out of date). About half of the Mexicans "run
with" (institutional slang for "are affiliated with") the Paisas, a
relatively amorphous prison gang that draws its ranks almost
exclusively from Mexican nationals; a smaller percentage of U.S.
Hispanics run with Tango Blast, a more organized gang with a much
cooler name; while blacks and whites for purposes of prison riots and
dining arrangements both act mostly as race-based units.
As usual, there are all manner of qualifiers and exceptions plus a
smattering of smaller groupings: The Muslims will usually constitute
their own little umma, there are a couple of whites who run with Tango,
and so on. The most amusing of these aberrations involved the fellow
with whom I shared a cell before he transferred to a low a few weeks
back. Aaron LeBaron was born into an ultra-fundamentalist Mormon
cult led by his father, who had moved the wives and kids to Mexico
after some members of his congregation started to question whether or
not all of the voices he was hearing were actually from God. Aaron
eventually inherited the family theocracy as well as the family hit
list and the family international stolen car ring. In the end he was
captured and sentenced to 45 years. Today Aaron is an agnostic and
longtime Skeptic Magazine subscriber who was very excited to learn that
I'd written for that magazine as well as for Skeptical Inquirer. (Come
to think of it, he was the only person I've ever met who found either
one the least bit impressive, and I've been working them into
introductory conversations for years.) At any rate, having been raised
in Mexico and speaking perfect Spanish, this gangly, bespectacled,
white, Mormon-looking fellow had been accepted as one of the Paisas,
with whom he sat every day to eat and watch television. Scientists
cannot measure the extent to which I'm going to dominate every dinner
party conversation for the rest of my life.
For a medium, Three Rivers isn't particularly violent. The last major
gang war, between the Tangos and the Paisas, was nearly a year ago;
afterward the compound went on lockdown for about two weeks, itself a
fairly typical gang intelligence investigation/cool-down period. In the
three months since I've arrived, I've only had to "take a knee" once
(inmates here are supposed to put at least one knee to the ground when
officers run by screaming "Get the fuck down!" or some variation
thereof as they proceed to the location of a conflict). And we've only
been locked down in the aftermath of a fight on one occasion, for just
a few hours.
This is just as well, as I'm thereby able to concentrate on the trickle
of information coming in from the wicked world beyond the fence. Lately
I've been getting garbled reports of hoverboards, as well as some sort
of new fascist movement that could conceivably take control of the
White House this year, though I find it difficult to believe that the
boards actually float like the ones from the movie.
Meanwhile, I'm halfway through the newish first volume of Niall
Ferguson's biography of Henry Kissinger, which we shall examine in some
detail next time. For now I will simply leave off with the following
actual sentences from Ferguson's introduction: "In this context, it is
a strange irony of the Kissinger literature that so many of the
critiques of Kissinger's mode of operation have a subtle undertone of
anti-Semitism. ... This prompts the question: might the ferocity of the
criticism that Kissinger has attracted perhaps have something to do
with the fact that he, like the Rothschilds, is Jewish? This is not to
imply that his critics are anti-Semites." Well, the hyphens are all in
their proper places, anyway.
Quote of the Day
"When the mob gains the day it ceases to be any longer the mob. It is
then called the nation."
-- Napoleon
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: